Bose cube replacement question. - Page 5

They are running the spatial controls with that measurement, or otherwise their analysis is bunk: "The response then is generally within about +/-5db and varies little--after compensating the mic position a little - with any setting of the spatial control." If you look at the spatial control EQ in Graph 2, the response is +/- 10db. Therefore it has to be turned on when they are running that test for Graph 5, or there can be no +/-5db response once it's added in. Then the "setting of the spatial control" they are talking about refers to the low filter and bandwidth effects depicted in Graph 1 and maybe the loudness contour in Graph 3. Based on applying those graphs and graph 5, the conclusion of the +/-5db overall response makes sense.

My farts are also flat to 25hz!

Mine have variations in SPL

The beautiful thing about science is that works whether you believe in it or not. You're arguing against science that has been proven correct time and time again since 1972. Arguing about that which you do not comprehend is a waste of everyone's time. There is a cure for that lack of comprehension: educate yourself. It's not like there aren't plenty of sources out there. For starters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiele/Small
Edited by Bill Fitzmaurice - 2/21/13 at 9:17am

Listening to my own farts was far more enjoyable! My 901 made me depressed and hardly wanted to play music. As always, IMO and happy listening!

Your high handed comments notwithstanding, the point that many of you keep dancing around is that with the spatial receiver employed the response is not what you predicted or described. Additionally, you and some others on this thread have described the 901s as horrible, but here you have a reviewer who paints a picture that is quite different.

Those tests are objective, but you dismiss them, citing science.

Yes science is important, but interpretation of science by its practitioners and correct methodology is also critical. Many 'scientists" make mistakes and draw the wrong conclusions. Science in the hands of its practitioners predicted that the speed of sound was an absolute barrier. Petroleum science is full of so-called axioms, many of which are contradicted by the considered observations and evidence of others. Holding science and your application of it up as an absolute is just plain silly.

Frankly, at this point, this discussion, replete with fart jokes, is wasting my time.

I guess you missed where I said The f3 of the 901, unprocessed, is 80Hz. Response is down -10dB at 60Hz, -16dB at 50Hz, -40dB at 25Hz. Maybe you should just stick to that day job. I am.

LMAO and ROF!!!! I just skimmed over this 5 page fiasco and got some really good laughs.

Bill, again with the high handed comments?????? I knew science was high handed, I knew it all along

It definitely is a waste of time. You shoot down the expert opinions offered against Bose because science is fallible, and yet you offer science as evidence (that review) when you believe it suits your goals. It is a waste of time of time to argue with someone applying double standards.

I hate to think what the "S" stands for.

Science is God's way of bringing order to the universe, so he that believes not in science is a blasphemer who shall suffer eternal damnation. Or have to listen to Bose. Same thing.

Hate to tell him where he needs to put a Bose Wave tube to fix the problem!

Sorry, i could not resist!
Edited by Badouri - 2/21/13 at 2:53pm

Dat says he owns the speaker and has measured them and the freq goes down to a level that is mathematically not possible for the drivers used in the Bose 901...and you suggest that one of us non Bose lovers should buy the speaker, measure it to prove him wrong when the science has already suggested he has error'd in his measurements!?
The 901 has been measured many times, including the article you linked and it just doesn't have impressive bass! Is that point really disputable? Anyway, I am done talking about a speaker that doesn't impress me...

I clearly stated that I measured the speakers with the Bose EQ on. That is the only way you listen to the speaker so it would be kind of pointless to measure them without it. You don't measure speakers w/o their crossover, do you? Try it and see how long your tweeter lasts! Of course the response of the 901 will drop in the bass and treble without EQ. I suppose I could measure them without just for comparison purposes. Then, you could clearly see what the EQ is doing, and what the amp is doing.

My friend, to whom I sold my first pair of 901's, bought a Bose receiver to drive them with. If memory serves, it was rated at 40W/channel. Due to the high mid-band sensitivity of the Series III thru Series VI 901, even low powered amps can drive them to very satisfying levels. I use a 200W/channel Adcom, which happens to have little LED's that are supposed to light when distortion reaches a certain level (1%, I think). I've never seen them flash on, ever. I almost always listen in a darkened room, so I should be able to see them since the amp is at the front of the room. And I like to listen at around 90-95dB peak-level. Rarely, when the wife and kids are away, I have gone beyond that level with rock music. Still no distortion indicators. And the amp never gets more than barely warm, so the 901's are an easy load, even a life-like levels.

One thing you brainiacs may not be factoring into my measurements is room gain and speaker coupling at the lowest frequencies. I measured both speakers at the same time.

To whoever posted the picture of the anechoic chamber: What was that supposed to prove? That was not a living environment. That was...an anechoic chamber. My point still stands -most people don't listen to music in those, we listen in real living spaces with lots of hard, reflective surfaces.

You have probably run taichi4 off, but I hope not. I appreciate his posting of the link to the Australian magazine's test. I will read the whole thing when I have time. taichi4 is reasonable and respectful, traits some others here would be well-served to emulate.

So did the Aussies. 25Hz is down -18dB, just as the science predicts. And theirs is an in-room measurement, you can tell by the 60Hz dip. They alluded to that in the text. They didn't say specifically, but it's a reflection sourced null.


No alteration to the room or use of a second speaker is going to magically increase 25Hz sensitivity by 13dB.

I too don't believe the 25hz claim. Anyone consider that perhaps Dat56 was using measuring equipment that was not up to specs?

I have a Logitech z-2300 for my pc and I consider the sub to be decent and that barely reaches 30hz and has a pretty large magnet, excursion ability and amp so I highly doubt that 4" paper drivers with tiny magnets can do 25.

This reminds me of the old joke of a guy driving on the wrong side of the road and calling the cops to tell them that there are 20 idiots facing him in the wrong lane!

That's it for me, take care guys.

I'm not making any claims with regards to the accuracy of my posted measurements. They are what they are. I've already covered what I used to take the measurements but I haven't really said anything about the room.

The room the 901's are in is 16' x 18.5' x 8.67' (WxLxH). They hang 18" from the ceiling and 17" from the front of one of the short walls. Each speaker is 37" from the nearest sidewall. I took the measurements from the listening position, which is about 3-4' away from the back wall, dead center between the speakers. It's about 12-13' from the speakers. So this is a real in-room measurement. In fact, you could call it as much a measurement of the room as the speaker. I could have gotten a smoother response, especially in the treble, by measuring on axis at 1 meter, and the bass would have measured flatter, too, with a near-field measurement.

This room is prone to fairly severe standing waves. The listening spot is in bit of a null around 50Hz, so it may be boosting some frequencies below that. FWIW, the mic (Radio Shack analog spl meter) has never been calibrated by me. It was placed on a tripod and the tripod was placed on the sectional cushion as close as possible to where I usually sit to listen. The mic was positioned pointing up towards the ceiling.

You're not? Could have fooled me.

+1 It's like a bad song on the radio, it just won't go away. To accurately reproduce any type of source properly, you have to first be able to actually play those frequencies recorded and the 901's do not.